Order 21

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: Page No. 1/7
18 Civ Suit 197/24
Pradeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Sh Ram Kirpal
16.05.2026
Present: Sh. Y.K. Sharma, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Sakshi Nagar, Ld. Counsel for the defendant (through
VC).
Put up for orders at 04:00 PM.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/16.05.2026
At 04:00 PM
Present: None.
Order on application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC
1. The instant application has been filed by the Plaintiff under Order VI
Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter ‘CPC’).
Submissions on behalf of Plaintiff
2. Plaintiff seeks to amend the title of the suit by adding the word
‘declaration’ and the same to be read as ‘suit for declaration, permanent and
mandatory injunction’.
3. Plaintiff seeks to add para 16A after para 16 to allege that the defendant
prepared bogus documents in respect of property description, out of ract 27,
kila no. 15/2, situated in the area of village Karawal, in the abadi of Raja Vihar,
Ilaqa Shahdara bounded as under:-
East: Plot of Sh. Devi Prasad
West: Land of executant
-- 1 of 7 --
Page No. 2/7
North: Plot of Sh.Mangal Singh
South: Gali 15 Feet, and that the defendant prepared bogus documents
in respect of property at Khasra No. 15/2 and ract no. 27 situated at Village
Karawal Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and bounded as under:-
East: Plot of others
West: Plot of others
South: Plot of others
North: Gali 15 feet.
4. Apart from alleging the above, plaintiff requests to add para 16B and
16C to additionally allege that defendant had prepared forged documents
pertaining to above-mentioned property and the plaintiff got the knowledge of
the same after WS was filed by the defendant.
5. Plaintiff also submits that para no. 2 and 17 have been printed twice
albeit with different contents and twice para may be treated as 2a and 17a
respectively.
6. Plaintiff also requests to rectify para no. 18 of the plaint which is
regarding valuation of the present suit in the light of the addition of extra relief
of declaration sought in this application.
7. Plaintiff also requests to add prayer clause b-1 to include the relief of
declaring the documents pertaining to the properties mentioned in para no. 3 of
this order as null and void.
Submissions on behalf of Defendant
8. On the other hand, the defendant objects to the said application on the
ground that the plaintiff seeks to change the subject matter through present
application. The defendant further submits that the plaint pertains to plot no.
C128, out of Khasra No. 27/6, Khatauni no 219, Village Karawal Nagar, PS
Karalwal Nagar, Delhi-110094 and through this application plaintiff seeks the
relief of declaration with respect to property plot no. C128, Khasra No. 15/2,
-- 2 of 7 --
Page No. 3/7
Ract no. 27 situated at Abadi of West Karawal Nagar, PS Khajuri Khas, Delhi
which is a different property.
9. Apart from the above, defendant has denied all the grounds taken by the
plaintiff in the instant application and pleads for dismissal of this application.
Analysis and Findings
10. Before proceeding to examining the application on merits. Let us
reproduce the provision under consideration. Order VI Rule 17 CPC would
read thus:
17. Amendment of pleadings.—The Court may at any stage of the
proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in
such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such
amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose
of determining the real questions in controversy between the
parties: Provided that no application for amendment shall be
allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to
the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not
have raised the matter before the commencement of trial.
11. Thus, the provision cited above permits the court to pass such order as
would enable the court to determine the real questions in controversy between
the parties. That order could be to permit the party to amend their pleadings.
The only rider is that the amendment should not be readily permitted once the
trial has commenced.
12. From a bare perusal of this provision, it is pellucid that Order 6 Rule 17
of the Code of Civil Procedure consists of two parts. The first part is that the
court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to amend his
pleadings and the second part is that such amendment shall be made for the
purpose of determining the real controversies raised between the parties.
-- 3 of 7 --
Page No. 4/7
Therefore, in view of the provisions made under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC it cannot
be doubted that wide power and unfettered discretion has been conferred on the
court to allow amendment of the pleadings to a party in such manner and on
such terms as it appears to the court just and proper. 1 Thus, it is clear that if the
proposed amendment helps in determining the real controversy between the
parties the mandatory portion of the provision plays out and such amendment
must be allowed by the Court.
13. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled as
Revajeetu Builders & Developers v. Narayanaswamy & Sons,2 would also lay
down certain rules of prudence to be factored into while considering an
application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which reads thus:
Factors to be taken into consideration while dealing with
applications for amendments
63. On critically analysing both the English and Indian cases,
some basic principles emerge which ought to be taken into
consideration while allowing or rejecting the application for
amendment:
(1) whether the amendment sought is imperative for proper and
effective adjudication of the case;
(2) whether the application for amendment is bona fide or
mala fide;
(3) the amendment should not cause such prejudice to the other
side which cannot be compensated adequately in terms of money;
(4) refusing amendment would in fact lead to injustice or lead to
multiple litigation;
1
Baldev Singh v. Manohar Singh,
(2006) 6 SCC 498.
2 (2009) 10 SCC 84
-- 4 of 7 --
Page No. 5/7
(5) whether the proposed amendment constitutionally or
fundamentally changes the nature and character of the case; and
(6) as a general rule, the court should decline amendments if a
fresh suit on the amended claims would be barred by limitation
on the date of application.
xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis Supplied)
14. Thus, as a general rule the amendments necessary for determining real
controversy must be allowed but those amendment which tend to change the
character of the suit or which tend to retract the admissions made in the suit are
not to be permitted by the Court.
15. In the light of the above legal position, I shall examine the instant
application.
16. The contention at stake is the description of suit property in the present
application. Perusal of the plaint would reveal that the suit property has been
described as property bearing no./ plot no. C128, out of Khasra No. 27/6,
Khatauni no. 219, situated at Village Karawal Nagar, in the abadi of west
Karawal Nagar, Illaqa Shahdara, Delhi bounded as under:
East: Property of Sh. Ram Kirpal
West: Property of Sh.Kamla Devi Pandey
North: Property of Mangal Singh
South: Road 15 feet wide
whereas the amendment is sought to include the property description,
out of ract 27, kila no. 15/2, situated in the area of village Karawal, in the abadi
of Raja Vihar, Ilaqa Shahdara bounded as under:-
East: Plot of Sh. Devi Prasad
West: Land of executant
-- 5 of 7 --
Page No. 6/7
North: Plot of Sh.Mangal Singh
South: Gali 15 Feet, and property at Khasra No. 15/2 and ract no. 27
situated at Village Karawal Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and bounded as under:-
East: Plot of others
West: Plot of others
South: Plot of others
North: Gali 15 feet.
It is in respect of the last two properties that the prayer of amendment is
made. The plaintiff requests that the documents pertaining to these last two
properties mentioned above be declared as null and void.
17. The legal position adumbrated above clarifies that amendment which
tends to change the fundamental nature and character of the original suit should
not be permitted. In the instant matter, through this application, the plaintiff
wants to add another subject matter i.e. the properties of different description
which would effectually change the subject matter of the suit and the
fundamental character of the suit from injunction to declaration. Thus, the
proposed amendment has the potential to strike at the very foundation of
jurisprudential principles upon which the law regarding Order VI Rule 17 CPC
rests.
18. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, the aforesaid amendment is rejected.
19. However, as far as the amendment regarding reading para no. 2 and 17
of the plaint which have been printed twice is allowed and the second
occurrence of these paras be read as para no. 2a and 17a respectively.
20. Accordingly, the amendment application is partly allowed and partly
rejected. Application disposed off in above terms.
21. Since, the addition of prayers and amendment of title is being rejected
and the application is allowed only to the extent of reading the twice occurring
-- 6 of 7 --
Page No. 7/7
paras 2 and 17 as 2a and 17a respectively, filing of amended plaint and
amended WS is not required and accordingly, dispensed with.
21. Matter is at the stage of PE. Let the matter be listed for cross-
examination of PW-1 on 13.07.2026.
Pranat Kumar Joshi
ACJ-cum-ARC-cum-CCJ
North-East/Karkardooma Courts,
Delhi/16.05.2026
-- 7 of 7 --